Projects to protect the intellectual property rights of corporations are underway all around the world on a continual basis but it is rare for operational details to leak out to the public.

Unfortunately for Nintendo, leaked documents are now revealing how frightening things can get for console hackers in their crosshairs, even when those targets have already declared that their work isn’t designed for piracy purposes.

Leaked Documents Reveal Police-Style Surveillance Operation

During the past 24 hours, various Twitter accounts ( 1 , 2 ) have been posting snippets from documents that were recently leaked from Nintendo. While there are numerous items of interest, the most shocking revelations involve Neimod, a hacker who several years ago developed exploits for the 3DS handheld console.

Of course, it’s not surprising for a company like Nintendo to have a keen interest in work carried out by someone like Neimod. Nintendo’s documentation described him as a “highly skilled hardware engineer” with “a very high reputation within the hacker scene, for Nintendo products.”

However, the scale of the operation, which is revealed in detail in the leaked documents, shows just how far the gaming giant was prepared to go to stop his work.

For example, the leak reveals personal profiling that dug deeply into Neimod’s education status, listed details of his working life, while offering evidence of physical snooping on his daily lifestyle. What time he could be found at home, who came to see him there, and even when he visited places like banks and restaurants are all included.

Reposting this to hide the sensitive information, but Nintendo literally stalked this guy. pic.twitter.com/rFCHIJ1CI4

— Forest of Illusion (@forestillusion) December 22, 2020

While this kind of surveillance is creepy in its own right, additional documents reveal a detailed plan to use the gathered intelligence to physically confront Neimod in order to pressurize him into complying with the company’s demands.

Detailed Operational Planning to Intercept Target

According to Nintendo’s planning, the operation would begin around April 15, 2013, with its team meeting at a local hotel to discuss and finalize their plans. Following a review of Neimod’s movements of the previous week, the team would then decide where and when contact would be made – after work or at home, for example.

With an undercover investigator monitoring Neimod to discover what time he left work, Neimod was to be approached by a ‘contact team’, who were instructed to approach their target “in a friendly, non-threatening, professional, and courteous manner. “Provide a business card,” the instructions read .

After Neimod had been engaged in conversation, the team was instructed to flatter the hacker by “acknowledging his engineering/programming aptitude.” They were also told to reference his stated aim of not “facilitating piracy” with his hacks but point out Nintendo’s concerns that a release of his hack could do just that.

Whether Neimod complied or resisted, Nintendo prepared for both eventualities. The following slide, posted to Twitter by Eclipse-TT , shows a flow chart that begins with instructions for the “Knock and Talk Team”, details a staging area, rules of engagement, and plans for what should happen when things go to plan – or otherwise.

The Nintendo “Final Enforcement Proposal” document describes a “carrot and stick” approach, with the stick being a laundry list of potential offenses committed by Neimod under Belgian law and the carrot representing a number of sweeteners that might be of interest to the hacker.

If cooperation was achieved, Nintendo suggested it could refrain from filing a criminal complaint. It may also enter into a “bounty” contract with Neimod with payments made for finding and documenting exploits. Within certain parameters, his discoveries could still be announced to the public, allowing him to retain “bragging rights.” This could help Nintendo’s image, the company wrote.

“If successful, Nintendo’s public image may be further bolstered as a modern, tech-savvy company, while hinting that hackers should be cooperative rather than aggressive with Nintendo in the future (in contrast to Sony’s missteps with George ‘geohot’ Hotz),” the document adds, noting that a trip to Japan to meet Nintendo’s hardware engineers might also prove attractive.

Of course, significantly boosting public image long term is only possible when details of invasive surveillance operations stay out of the public eye. With the leak of the full “Hacker Enforcement Proposal” now in full swing ( here , pdf), that will be just a little bit harder for Nintendo.

On the other hand, it might also give hackers pause for thought. Or, indeed, drive them further underground.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

It is a busy week for copyright proposals in the United States, one that will resound far into the year ahead.

A few hours after the ‘CASE Act’ and the ‘Protecting Lawful Streaming Act’ were approved as part of the spending bill , a discussion draft for a new and improved version of the DMCA was revealed.

The draft (pdf) was published by Senator Thom Tillis, who started a thorough review of the copyright law last year. After hearing dozens of experts and stakeholders, the Senator released what he considers to be a more modern version of the 20-year old DMCA.

“The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed in 1998, and while it was revolutionary at the time, the law simply hasn’t kept pace with changes in technology. The DMCA is now antiquated and is past-due for modernization,” Senator Tillis said.

“This discussion draft is the result of a year-long series of hearings and months of feedback from creators, user groups, and technology companies.”

Titled the “Digital Copyright Act of 2021,” the proposal suggests various updates and changes that have ignited instant opposition from digital rights groups. We will provide a summary of some key proposals but there will be more to unpack in the future.

Notice and Staydown

The current DMCA requires online services to remove copyright-infringing links or files when they are alerted by copyright holders. This won’t change in the new proposal but simply taking down content is no longer sufficient.

When copyright holders inform services that ‘complete or near complete’ copies of their works are being shared online without permission, these platforms have to ensure that this content stays offline.

While the draft doesn’t mention filters specifically, the ‘staydown’ language indirectly requires online sites and services to monitor and filter uploaded content. This would be similar to Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive.

Copyright holders have argued in favor of a staydown requirement for years. They argue that this is essential to end the piracy ‘whack-a-mole’ where they have to send hundreds of takedown requests for the same content.

Disconnecting Repeat Infringers?

The existing DMCA already requires ISPs to disconnect repeat infringers, but it’s not clear when this should happen, and if notifications from rightsholders are sufficient as evidence.

This ambiguity has led to a series of lawsuits where ISPs are accused of failing to adhere to the DMCA. The new Digital Copyright Act should bring an end to this uncertainty.

The discussion draft proposes to get rid of the “repeat infringer” and replace it with “persons that, on multiple occasions, were the subject of notifications (…) that were not successfully challenged.”

More importantly, it requires the Copyright Office, together with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to develop a policy model that specifies what a frequent offender is and how these persons should be handled.

This suggestion is in line with the Copyright Office’s own assessment from earlier this year, which called on Congress to clarify when a user’s account should be terminated .

Small Claims, Copyright Abuse, and More

The discussion draft also proposes using a small claims tribunal for smaller copyright offenses. This pretty much means incorporating the CASE Act in the new law but that seems unnecessary now that the proposal has already been passed.

A more novel suggestion in the ‘DMCA 2.0’ is to keep a list of companies and copyright holders that repeatedly send false takedown notices. These ‘flagged’ abusers are placed on a list maintained by the Copyright Office.

When online services receive takedown notices from blacklisted senders they are not required to act. In other words, they can ignore these takedowns without losing their safe harbor.

Praise and Outrage

As mentioned earlier, the above is just an initial rundown of the proposal, which by itself is merely a discussion draft. And based on the early responses, there is plenty to discuss, or not.

“There’s nothing to discuss,” The Electronic Frontier Foundation notes in an early response adding that “the bill, if passed, would absolutely devastate the Internet.”

Re:Create is equally offended by the draft stating that the proposed Digital Copyright Act “would fundamentally end online creativity as we know it.”

Public Knowledge, meanwhile , notes that the draft text “would significantly curtail online speech, subjecting every upload to mandatory content filtering while effectively eliminating fair use on the internet.”

As is often the case with copyright law proposals, the responses are mixed. Rightsholders are pleased with most of the suggestions, which is reflected in an early response from 22 music groups .

“Through a thoughtful, deliberative process, Senator Tillis has developed an important proposal. By digging deep into the substance, engaging a broad universe of stakeholders and experts, and confronting the issues, Senator Tillis and his team have started an important discussion about how best to provide incentives for success,” they say.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

Earlier today Congress approved the 5,593-page spending bill.

In addition to the necessary paperwork to keep the Government running, the bill also included COVID-19 relief measures and other last-minute additions.

Copyright Proposals Passed

These late additions include two controversial pieces of copyright legislation: the CASE Act and a new felony streaming proposal . Both were passed as part of the package with little to no discussion.

The spending bill will now be sent to President Trump for a signature, after which it becomes law. This means that the two controversial copyright proposals are set to change how certain copyright infringement issues are handled.

The CASE ACT

The CASE Act, short for “Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement,” establishes a copyright claim tribunal within the United States Copyright Office. This new board will provide an option to resolve copyright disputes outside the federal courts, which significantly reduces the associated costs.

The tribunal aims to make it easier for smaller creators, such as photographers and songwriters, to address copyright infringements without starting an expensive lawsuit at a federal court. If targeted ‘infringers’ don’t want to participate, they have the choice to opt-out.

Opponents fear that the new tribunal will trigger an avalanche of claims against ordinary Internet users. It would be an open invitation to copyright trolls as it allows them to file cases cheaply. Defendants risk potential damages of $15,000 per infringement, up to $30,000 per case.

Trolls

The public interest group Public Knowledge is disappointed with the passage of the bill, which it fiercely opposed. It was “forced into passage”, according to Legal Director John Bergmayer, and exposes ordinary citizens to steep fines.

“The bill creates an opportunity for copyright trolls, who can file claims against small-time artists and individual internet users, and sets up a process that can deny defendants their usual rights. It is deeply problematic, and we will fight for its repeal,” Bergmayer says.

It is worth stressing that the copyright trolls who go after file-sharers in court can’t easily exploit the new tribunal, as it has no subpoena power. This means that rightsholders can’t start a case against a “John Doe” who’s only known by an IP-address.

Supporters of the bill have argued it will greatly benefit smaller creators and may also help people who are subject to copyright abuse. For example, by taking a DMCA takedown dispute to the tribunal instead of the federal court.

Felony Streaming Proposal

In addition to the CASE ACT, the felony streaming proposal was also passed with the spending bill. The foundations of this proposal date back to the SOPA and PIPA bills, but the most recent version, announced by Senator Thom Tillis last week, is much smaller in scope.

The felony streaming legislation, titled the ‘ Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020 ’, will allow law enforcement to prosecute pirate streaming services. This was complicated under current US copyright law, as streaming can only be charged as a misdemeanor, not a felony.

The new proposal amends US copyright law by adding a section that allows commercial streaming piracy services to be targeted while leaving individual streamers out of the crosshairs.

Specifically, the bill makes it unlawful to provide a service that’s primarily designed to show copyright-infringing content, has no significant commercial purpose other than piracy, or is intentionally marketed to promote streaming piracy.

Twitch and YouTube

The streaming felony legislation targets people or organizations that provide a “digital transmission service.” This means that it doesn’t apply to ordinary users who stream something on YouTube, Twitch, or any other streaming platform.

This distinction between services and individual streamers is crucial as the opposition to previous bills focused on the fear that new legislation would send ordinary people to jail for accidentally streaming a copyrighted video or music track.

The passage of the felony streaming proposal is an early Christmas present for major copyright holders who have complained about this gap in the law for years .

The music industry is also pleased, both with the CASE Act and the felony streaming legislation.

“The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act and Protect Lawful Streaming Act (PLSA) will strengthen creators’ ability to protect their works against infringement online, and promote a safer, fairer digital environment, which are particularly needed as the arts struggle to survive the pandemic,” RIAA and other music groups commented.

Going Forward

If President Trump signs the spending bill, which he is expected to do, wheels will be set in motion to create the small claims copyright tribunal. Details of when it can be used and how it will work will be announced at a later date.

Time will tell how both pieces of copyright legislation will affect copyright enforcement. That applies to the small claims cases, but also to the streaming legislation, which could be the start of a broader crackdown on streaming services in US Courts.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

While rightsholders and authorities all around the world are working to disrupt pirate IPTV platforms, in 2020 Italian law enforcement entities have been more involved than most.

Every few weeks agencies including the Guardia di Finanza have announced fresh action to try and reduce the use of piracy-enabled set-top devices, often referred to by the term ‘pezzotto’.

New Legal Action Against 50,000-User IPTV Platform

According to an announcement by the Provincial Command of the Guardia di Finanza of Milan, an operation coordinated by the Public Prosecutor of Milan has resulted in the “preventative seizure” of an IPTV platform through which more than 50,000 users were accessing TV content without permission.

The name of the platform hasn’t been directly released by the authorities but a video claiming to show aspects of ‘Operation: The Net’ shows the URL Webnet.cam (currently down) apparently involved in IPTV.

Considering sports broadcasters are some of the entertainment companies hardest hit by the proliferation of piracy-enabled devices, it is no surprise that the action follows preliminary investigations carried out by Sky Italia and football league Serie A.

These entities filed complaints with the authorities, triggering an investigation by the Milan Economic-Financial Police Unit and the Computer Crimes Team of the local Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Large Pirate IPTV Operation Uncovered

“Subsequent investigations revealed the existence of an interconnected organization, operating in different regions of the national territory, dedicated to the sale and distribution of decoding devices suitable for allowing access to the IPTV encrypted service to enjoy television content, without payment of the applicable fees,” GdF’s statement reads.

GdF IPTV Seizure Notice

According to the law enforcement entity, the investigation against the platform was made more complex due to the suspects’ use of VPNs to “anonymize communications”.

Nevertheless, three individuals have now been reported to the prosecutor’s office for breaches of Art. 171 of Italy’s Copyright Law, which for criminal infringements can mean fines and/or imprisonment.

Serie A Welcomes Action, Warns Subscribers

“We are extremely satisfied with the results we are achieving in synergy with the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the field of combating audiovisual piracy. The work carried out has completed an operation of great importance,” says Serie A CEO Luigi De Siervo.

According to Siervo, after identifying those at the top of the “criminal organization” with the assistance of anti-piracy company Digital Content Protection , attention is now being turned to the people who subscribed to the illegal service.

“It is a further step forward in our daily battle because thanks to the seizure of the database of these criminals, the final users are being identified who will, in turn, be reported and prosecuted with penalties ranging from 2,500 to 25,000 euros,” the Serie A chief warned.

Whether this threat will be carried out at scale will remain to be seen but Italy has already shown a willingness this year to go after pirate IPTV subscribers. In February, the Guardia di Finanza said it had reported 223 subscribers of pirate IPTV services to the judicial authorities.

This latest operation against the 50,000-subscriber platform follows on the heels of two others involving Italian authorities in recent months.

In September, the Guardia di Finanza said that 58 sites and 18 Telegram channels had been blocked for their involvement in pirate IPTV. Then last month, a massive law enforcement operation (“The Perfect Storm”) carried out across Europe reportedly shut down 5,500 servers used to stream pirated TV broadcasts, live sports, and movies to the public.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

Grammy award-winning musician Maria Schneider and Virgin Islands-based Pirate Monitor Ltd teamed up in the summer to file a class-action lawsuit against YouTube.

In an effort to gain access to YouTube’s Content ID system, the complaint stated that YouTube has an allegedly lax attitude to takedown notices and repeat infringers, and discriminates against smaller creators.

Schneider told the court that a number of her songs had been posted to YouTube without her permission. Pirate Monitor Ltd argued similarly, stating that pirated copies of its works had been uploaded to the site. Both further said they had been denied access to Content ID.

In its response, YouTube focused on Pirate Monitor, alleging that the company or its agents uploaded the ‘pirate’ movies and then claimed mass infringement, something which disqualified them from accessing Content ID.

“YouTube Failed to Provide Evidence”

In a motion to dismiss filed in November, Pirate Monitor said YouTube had provided no “hard evidence” to back up these damaging claims, demanding that the court disregard the allegations and reject calls for the right to an injunction to prevent Pirate Monitor from submitting wrongful DMCA notices in the future.

At the time we noted that it was unlikely that YouTube had simply pulled its claims out of thin air and in an opposition to dismiss Pirate Monitor’s counterclaims, YouTube now provides a taster of some of the supporting evidence it has on file.

Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

“Pirate Monitor devised an elaborate scheme to prove itself sufficiently trustworthy to use YouTube’s advanced copyright management tools,” YouTube begins.

“Through agents using pseudonyms to hide their identities, Pirate Monitor uploaded some two thousand videos to YouTube, each time representing that the content did not infringe anyone’s copyright. Shortly thereafter, Pirate Monitor invoked the notice-and-takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to demand that YouTube remove the same videos its agents had just uploaded.”

YouTube notes that Pirate Monitor has still not disputed these claims but has nevertheless moved to dismiss, arguing that YouTube should provide detailed evidence to support its allegations. According to YouTube, it does not have to do that at this early stage but nevertheless highlights some key evidence to show foul play.

Suspicious Uploads

In all, YouTube processed nearly 2,000 DMCA notices it received by Pirate Monitor in the fall of 2019. All of the targeted videos had a uniform length, around 30 seconds each, generated from “obscure Hungarian movies”. They had been uploaded in bulk from users with IP addresses allocated to Pakistan.

“That alone was suspicious, there is no obvious reason why short clips from relatively unknown Hungarian-language movies should be uploaded to YouTube from accounts and devices in Pakistan,” YouTube writes.

Furthermore, YouTube notes that the videos were uploaded by users with similar names, such as RansomNova11 and RansomNova12, who gave the clips nondescript titles. Perhaps even more telling, the takedown notices were sent soon after the videos were uploaded, sometimes before the videos had been seen by anyone.

While the nature of the uploads is indeed suspicious, YouTube says that it also found what it describes as a “smoking gun”, i.e evidence that the uploads and DMCA notices were being sent by the same entity.

The Smoking Gun

“After considerable digging, YouTube found a smoking gun. In November 2019, amidst a raft of takedown notices from Pirate Monitor, one of the ‘RansomNova’ users that had been uploading clips via IP addresses in Pakistan logged into their YouTube account from a computer connected to the Internet via an IP address in Hungary,” YouTube explains.

“Pirate Monitor had been sending YouTube its takedown notices from a computer assigned that very same unique numeric address in Hungary. Simply put, whoever RansomNova is, he or she was sharing Pirate Monitor’s computer and/or Internet connection, and doing so at the same time Pirate Monitor was using the same computer and/or connection to send YouTube takedown notices.”

To counter Pirate Monitor’s claims that not enough evidence has been provided, YouTube says that a party is not required to prove its entire case in its complaint and the relevant rules do not allow Pirate Monitor to escape any accounting for fraudulent and illegal conduct by “concealing the identity of its agents and obscuring its connection to them.”

Specifically, however, YouTube says it has already answered the “who, what, where and when?” questions Pirate Monitor claims YouTube has not answered. The “who” is Pirate Monitor, the “what” is Pirate Monitor’s allegedly fraudulent representations, the “where” is YouTube’s website, and the “when” is from August 2019 to November 2019.

“For these reasons, Pirate Monitor’s motion to dismiss should be denied,” YouTube’s legal team writes.

The opposition to Pirate Monitor’s motion to dismiss can be found here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

For most police departments, online piracy has no priority, but the City of London Police have made copyright infringement one of their main targets.

In September 2013, the department founded the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit ( PIPCU ), which marked the start of a broad enforcement campaign to decrease traffic to pirate sites.

To achieve this goal PIPCU has targeted hosting services, advertisers and payment processors, asking them to cut ties with allegedly infringing sites. In addition, police also sent out warning letters to pirate site owners directly, asking them to go legit or shut down .

PIPCU Threatens YouTube Ripper

In recent years, hundreds of sites have been approached and this effort continues. A few days ago one such a ‘cease and desist’ order was sent to one of the largest YouTube rippers, who shared it with us on condition of anonymity.

The letter in question hasn’t changed much compared to the earlier versions we’ve seen. It accuses the site operator of possibly violating multiple laws, including the Fraud Act, the Copyright, Design & Patents Act, as well as the Serious Crime Act.

“[W]e have reasonable grounds to believe that through your ownership and/or operation of the website known as [https://redacted.yt-ripper], you are involved in online copyright infringement either directly or indirectly and may be liable to prosecution under UK law,” PIPCU writes.

Stream-Rippers Have Legal Uses

These are grave accusations of criminal conduct from the police, especially since stream-ripper sites are not typical pirate sites. For example, they don’t host copyrighted content or link to pirated files. They simply help users to make copies of YouTube videos or audio.

It is undeniable that these sites, including the one that was targeted by PIPCU, are used by people to copy copyrighted content. However, they are also used for legitimate purposes.

Put simply, stream-rippers help to make a copy of video or audio that is already freely accessible online. This is something every browser can do by default, but these dedicated sites make it a bit easier. That’s a far cry from the operations of a typical pirate site.

Linking?

PIPCU, however, doesn’t appear to make this distinction. According to the police, the YouTube ripper provides “links to media” which are used to access “unlicensed copyrighted content.”

“[https://redacted.yt-ripper] is a website that actively provides UK internet users with links to media which gives access to unlicensed copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holders,” PIPCU writes.

Not by Definition Illegal

This statement might be a bit too broad, especially since there’s no jurisprudence on the legality of stream-rippers in the UK. These sites are not blocked by ISPs either, unlike regular pirate sites.

The site that was targeted by PIPCU sees itself as a time-shifting tool that allows users to make personal backups. Time-shifting is, under some conditions, allowed under UK law. The site in question doesn’t host any copyrighted content, nor does it link to any.

The site likely feels strengthened by recent developments surrounding youtube-dl. The open-source software, used by many streamrippers, was removed from the developer platform GitHub following an RIAA takedown request a few weeks ago.

This decision was eventually reversed after youtube-dl received broad support from the public, legal experts, and digital rights groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Potential Prison Sentence

The cease and desist letter nonetheless mentions that the police unit has the lawful right to pursue action against the operator. It warns that this may eventually lead to prison sentences and fines.

“Should a conviction be brought for the above offenses, UK courts may impose sentences of imprisonment and/or fines,” PIPCU writes, adding that it has “criminal and civil powers in UK law to seize money, belongings and any property in connection with these offenses.”

This doomsday scenario can be avoided of course, if the site shuts down. PIPCU asks the operator to get in touch within 14 days or face further police action

“This may include steps to disrupt revenue made from advertisements and/or payment services; alongside internet infrastructure disruption,” PIPCU warns.

The operator of the site in question prefers not to comment on the matter at this time. However, despite the threats, there is no indication that YouTube ripper will shut down anytime soon.

A copy of the full PIPCU letter, from which we redacted the domain of the recipient, can be found below. It is possible that the same letter has also gone out to other stream-rippers as well.

—-

To: The owners and/or operators of the website known as “[https://redacted.yt-ripper]”

The Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit is hosted by the City of London Police and is a dedicated police unit set up to help prevent, deter and disrupt criminal activity relating to Intellectual Property.

One particular area of concern for PIPCU relates to websites involved in online copyright infringement. Such infringement causes significant harm to the UK’s creative economy – including the music, film, TV, gaming and publishing industries – and can be a criminal offence. We are therefore currently working on an initiative with Government and industry bodies to help prevent, deter and disrupt the criminal activity linked to websites involved in online copyright infringement.

In that regard, we have reasonable grounds to believe that through your ownership and/or operation of the website known as [https://redacted.yt-ripper], you are involved in online copyright infringement either directly or indirectly and may be liable to prosecution under UK law for the following offences:

– Conspiracy to Defraud
– Offences under the Fraud Act 2006
– Copyright, Design & Patents Act 1988
– Serious Crime Act 2007

Should a conviction be brought for the above offences, UK courts may impose sentences of imprisonment and/or fines.

PIPCU has criminal and civil powers in UK law to seize money, belongings and any property in connection with these offences.

All the domains are associated to IP addresses hosting content or are involved in the directing or distributing of traffic to content stored elsewhere. Please see the below ruling relating to Link Aggregator Sites which confirms illegality where it can be shown they are created for the purpose of generating revenue;

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2016-09/cp160092en.pdf

https://redacted.yt-ripper is a website that actively provides UK internet users with links to media which gives access to unlicensed copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holders.

By reference to the advertising on https://redacted.yt-ripper, the copyrighted content is being made available in the course of a business model funded by revenue generated through the placing of advertisements on the site.

PIPCU monitors ad traffic using a third party vendors to evidence the revenue generated by websites through advertisements.

We have grounds to believe that as owners and/or operators of the website, you are committing offences under s.107 (2A) of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 (“CDPA”), which provides that:

“A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—
(a) in the course of a business, or
(b) otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.”

“Communication to the public” is defined by s.20 of the CDPA to include:

“the making available to the public of the work by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.”

Section 107(2A) is an indictable offence punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment.

Further, we have grounds to believe that as owners and/or operators of the website, you are committing offences under the Serious Crime Act 2007 by doing acts capable of encouraging and/or assisting such communication to the public (under s.107(2A) of the CPDA); and/or encouraging and/or assisting the distribution to the public (under s.107(1)(d)(iv) of the CDPA) of copyright content stored on and/or uploaded to cyber lockers – intending or believing that those offences will be encouraged or assisted.

Such activity is an indictable offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007 and is punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment (two years for encouraging/assisting communication to the public; and ten years for encouraging/assisting distribution to the public).

PIPCU has the lawful right to pursue action against you and against the website https://redacted.yt-ripper in order to prevent, detect and disrupt criminal activity.

To prevent the further commission of offences currently being caused by you and [https://redacted.yt-ripper], you should immediately make contact by emailing: PIPCUantipiracy@cityoflondon.police.uk

If no contact is made within 14 days of this email, then you and/or the https://redacted.yt-ripper website may face further police action. This may include steps to disrupt revenue made from advertisements and/or payment services; alongside internet infrastructure disruption.

If you believe that you have taken steps to legitimise your activities and that your website should no longer be subject to action, please use the aforementioned contact details to supply evidence. This should include the positive steps you have taken to remove infringing content or links to infringing content from your site.

We would like to assist you in legitimising your website and will be happy to provide advice in how you may be able to do this.

All of our rights are reserved.

Yours faithfully

The Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

Every year, thousands of “Doe” defendants are sued for allegedly sharing pirated videos via BitTorrent.

Most of these lawsuits follow a common pattern. The copyright holders track down an infringing IP-address, uncover the associated account holder through a subpoena, to then offer this person a settlement.

Defendants who ignore or deny the settlement offers will often be named. And if they fail to respond after that, the copyright holder will ask the court to issue a default judgment.

More Than an IP-address

In recent months Hawaii-based attorney Kerry Culpepper has, on occasion, broken with this pattern by bringing in additional evidence. For example, he went after several users of the torrent site YTS, after the site’s operator shared database information to resolve his own legal troubles.

In a case filed at a federal court in Texas last week, Culpepper continues down this path. While this case doesn’t rely on YTS information, it is connected to a previous lawsuit where ‘additional’ information surfaced.

Phone Store Lawsuit

Earlier this year, we reported that the company behind the movie Hunter Killer filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Verizon retailer VICTRA . According to that complaint, employees of the phone store promoted the use of pirate apps including Popcorn Time and Showbox.

The claim was backed up by testimony from a VICTRA customer who stated that an employee named Ms. Boylan recommended and helped him to install Popcorn Time to watch free movies. This case was eventually dismissed after a few months, likely following an out-of-court settlement. However, it wasn’t without consequence for the employee.

In the complaint filed in Texas last week, Hunter Killer writes that Boylan was fired by VICTRA for promoting and distributing movie piracy apps. While that must have come as a big hit, the movie company isn’t showing mercy.

Fired Employee Faces Piracy Lawsuit

On the contrary, Hunter Killer Productions accuses Boylan of both contributory and direct copyright infringement. The first allegation is related to the defendant’s promotion of Popcorn Time during her time with her former employer.

“Defendant Boylan promoted movie piracy apps at the VICTRA TX Store to her customers for the purposes of infringing copyright protected content,” the complaint reads, adding that she did so to increase sales and boost her compensation.

The allegation is backed up by the aforementioned testimony from a customer, who said that the defendant recommended and installed Popcorn Time on a newly purchased Samsung Galaxy tablet.

“Defendant Boylan promoted Popcorn Time by telling members of the general public, including Gerard Prado, that it could be used to watch ‘free movies’ at the TX Store on or around March 5, 2019.

“Defendant Boylan installed Popcorn Time on the tablet device of Gerard Prado while he was at the TX Store so that Gerard Prado could watch content in violation of copyright laws,” the complaint adds.

‘Defendant Also Downloaded the Film’

These allegations are just part of the picture. According to Hunter Killer, the defendant also downloaded and shared the movie herself. This claim is backed up by an IP-address that was observed sharing a pirated copy of Hunter Killer last December.

“Defendant Boylan downloaded, reproduced and shared copies of the Work under the file name ‘Hunter Killer (2018) [WEBRip] [720p] [YTS.AM]’ multiple times on December 27, 2019 from the IP address 174.237.5.2.”

The IP-address is linked to a Verizon cellular phone Internet service account in Boylan’s name. According to the complaint, this means that she likely downloaded the file herself.

In addition to Boylan, the movie company also accuses five John Doe defendants of direct copyright infringement by downloading the film. These people have yet to be identified through a subpoena.

Hunter Killer Productions hopes to recoup the damages these copyright infringements reportedly caused. In theory, this could reach $150,000 in statutory damages per person, but it’s likely that one or more defendants will settle out of court.

—

A copy of Hunter Killer’s complaint against Boylan and the five Doe defendants is available here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

So-called ‘copyright trolling’ campaigns against alleged file-sharers is huge business in both the United States and Europe.

The goal is to have courts order ISPs to hand over the personal details behind an IP address so that subscribers can be put under pressure to pay a settlement or face punishing legal action. In Denmark, especially considering its relatively small population, such schemes are now extremely prevalent. But all is not well for the main players.

Cases Undermined Due to Rookie Mistakes

It’s not always easy to tell the difference between a regular copyright lawsuit and one filed by a supposed ‘copyright troll’. However, when middle-man companies appear in the mix, those which appear to have no place in the proceedings other than to provide some kind of shield for the real rightsholders, red flags start to get raised. For those on the receiving end, however, that’s not always bad news.

As reported in April, a High Court in Denmark threw out three copyright infringement cases against alleged pirates. The problem was that Copyright Management Services, a UK middle-man company working with Danish law firm NJORD Law, attempted to squeeze around US$1,000 from the defendants to prevent further action from their movie company partners.

Unfortunately for them, however, the Eastern High Court found that CMS had absolutely no right to sue. As a result, the cases were dismissed and the opportunists were sent on their way. But that wasn’t the end of the road.

Dozens and Dozens of Cases Collapse

The findings of the Eastern High Court created momentum. Since then, it’s believed that around 100 other cases have been dismissed on the same grounds, including three reported by the Court of Frederiksberg this week.

The three cases emerged following judgments obtained against three defendants, one of whom reportedly torrented an adult movie and another London Has Fallen, a common title in similar lawsuits elsewhere. After failing to appear last year to defend themselves, each was ordered to pay 7,500 kroner (US$1,237) in default damages.

All three failed to pay, so each found themselves pursued through the bailiff’s court by the ‘plaintiffs’. However, the court in Frederiksberg has booted out all three cases ( 1 , 2 , 3 ), referencing earlier cases that found that CMS had no right to sue.

In fact, not only did the court reference the failed case in April, it also referred to another 39 rulings by the same court and another 60 handed down by the Copenhagen City Court, all of which found that CMS had no right to bring these copyright cases as it had no standing to be the plaintiff.

Hundreds of Thousands of Danes Potentially Affected

These types of lawsuits have been ongoing for several years in Denmark and despite warnings, very little has been done to prevent their spread. In 2018, ISPs Telenor and Telia put up a fight but the damage had already been done.

According to a report by Berlingske this week, at least 2,500 Danes could be affected and potentially up to 200,000.

“It’s a big money machine where you treat the courts as ATMs,” lawyer Allan Ohms told the publication. “Njord Law Firm is a reputable law firm, so I do not understand why they are involved.”

The Berlingske report catalogs many horrors, including the targeting of an 84-year-old woman with dementia and a 41-year-old man who had to sit in court while being accused of downloading porn, because his age and gender “matched the profile” of someone who would’ve carried out the crime. The case was dismissed but a family member recalls that the case took its toll.

“I clearly remember when he came home after the trial. He was completely devastated. As an ordinary citizen one stands completely defenseless in this situation. That can simply not be right,” the person said.

But many people have already settled with NJORD law and its apparently shadowy partners, about which very little is known.

Lawyer Nikolaj Linneballe said that no one really knows who is pulling the strings behind the scenes and, importantly, who is collecting all the money from cases that should have never been brought. He believes the settlement money should be returned when it has been shown that plaintiffs had no right to bring a case but whether that will ever happen is unknown.

Court Suggests That The Lawsuits May Be Illegal

As reported by Berlingske , the Court of Frederiksberg appears to be of the opinion that the lawsuits in these ‘false plaintiff’ cases may be illegal. Indeed, the suggestion is that Danes affected by the action may be able to file a claim for damages via a criminal complaint.

While that may be the case, by design these middle-man companies seem primed to collapse like chocolate teapots should the battle turn sour. But nonetheless, things are certainly in a mess.

Aside from CMS’s lack of standing to bring any of these cases, NJORD law stands accused of requesting an arbitrary amount of 7,500 kroner to settle each case, regardless of the costs incurred in the matter. This raises the question of how “real” these claims for compensation are, despite the fact they should’ve never been brought at all.

“[The] amount is arbitrarily fixed for the occasion, and not an amount where there is an expression of a real claim for compensation, remuneration or allowance,” the court previously said, noting that the actions constitute a potentially significant “legal security problem” for Danes.

One of the problems is the starting point of the law firm and its partners. Those accused are considered guilty unless they are able to prove their innocence, which in most cases is not possible, since the companies involved hold all of the ‘evidence’, including who is supposed to have shared what, when, and with whom.

Indeed, the collection and presentation of evidence is held in a tightly closed-loop, since it’s all handled non-transparently by entities acting in concert with the plaintiffs and rightsholders. The defendants have no access to the audit trails so are faced with the problem of arguing against a spreadsheet.

In many respects, copyright-trolling has rarely been any different. The smoke and mirrors are fairly standard, as are the strong-arm tactics. But maybe Denmark has had enough now, which is usually a signal for the trolls to move to another territory and start the same thing all over again.

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.

Earlier this year Texas-based model Deniece Waidhofer sued Thothub for copyright infringement after the site’s users posted many of her ‘exclusive’ photos.

Soon after the complaint was filed Thothub went offline . This prompted Waidhofer to shift priorities.

In an amended complaint, submitted a few weeks ago, Thothub is no longer a defendant. Instead, the lawsuit now focuses on several sites and services that did business with the pirate site, including CDN provider Cloudflare.

Cosplay Models Join Case Against Cloudflare

Another significant change is that Waidhofer is no longer the sole plaintiff. She is now joined by two cosplay artists, Ryuu Lavitz and Margaret McGhee, better known as OMGcosplay . Together, these models have millions of online followers.

When the original case was filed, Lavitz and McGhee hadn’t registered their photos at the Copyright Office. Both submitted their registrations for hundreds of works in September, after which they were able to join the case.

In addition to removing Thothub as a defendant and adding two plaintiffs, some of the strongest allegations were stripped from the original complaint. Cloudflare is no longer alleged to be part of a RICO conspiracy but is accused of direct and contributory copyright infringement.

The models claim that Cloudflare has carved out a competitive niche by serving illegal pirate sites that other large CDN companies like Akamai Technologies would not. It ‘helps’ these sites by concealing the real IP-address and by ‘storing’ their content, it’s alleged.

Motion to Dismiss

Cloudflare replied to these allegations by pointing out that it’s merely a middleman. The company has no knowledge of the traffic that passes through its network and doesn’t store content permanently, in most cases, but simply makes temporary “cache” copies.

“Under Plaintiffs’ wildly expansive theory of liability, the owner of any computer connected to the Internet could potentially be exposed to unlimited liability,” Cloudflare argued, adding that the complaint doesn’t show bad “intent”.

Based on these and various other deficiencies, the CDN provider asked the court to dismiss the case. However, the models disagree and recently submitted several counterarguments.

‘Cloudflare Helps Pirate Sites’

The models argue that Cloudflare was aware of the copyright infringements on Thothub, but chose not to do anything. Instead, it helped the site to cope with vast amounts of traffic so it could stay online. That’s what the site does for other pirate sites as well.

“Cloudflare easily could have limited Thothub’s infringement simply by terminating service, or by not delivering URLs that it had already been notified contained infringing content. But Cloudflare stood behind Thothub instead, as it does regularly for pirates everywhere. Indeed, Cloudflare has made a cottage industry out of indulging pirates.”

The plaintiffs say that Cloudflare is liable for contributory copyright infringement. The company’s decision not to take action helped Thothub to stay online and operate more efficiently. That is enough to be held liable, the models argue, referencing the ALS Scan case against Cloudflare.

“Cloudflare enabled Thothub to be operated securely on a vast scale. The law recognizes this as a material contribution that, with knowledge, creates liability,” they write.

Thothub Alternatives Still use Cloudflare

Without Cloudflare, Thothub’s site would have been “overrun and crashed.” Although it may have come back, that ‘simple measure’ would have made a difference, at least briefly. Cloudflare, however, decided not to act and it does the same for many similar sites today.

“The Complaint identifies nearly two dozen other pirate sites — all Cloudflare clients — that are Thothub copycats, including one called Thothub.ru that is nearly a direct clone,” the plaintiffs write.

In addition to contributory infringement, the models also accuse the company of direct infringement. They argue that the CDN provider made copies of Thothub files on its own accord and continued copying works after takedown notices were sent.

The reply to Cloudflare’s motion to dismiss is filled with allegations that will eventually have to be backed up with evidence. In addition to focusing on the case at hand, it also references an EU report which concluded that 62% of the world’s top 500 pirate sites use Cloudflare.

Daily Stormer and 8Chan

And, as we predicted a few years ago , Cloudflare’s decision to ban The Daily Stormer is also being brought up.

“Despite serving most of the world’s top pirate sites, on information and belief, Cloudflare has never voluntarily terminated services to a customer for repeat copyright infringement. Cloudflare has, however, voluntarily terminated services for other customer sites, including the American Neo-Nazi group Daily Stormer and the conspiracy website 8chan,” the reply reads.

It is now up to the US District Court for the Central District of California to decide whether the case against Cloudflare should be dismissed, or if the models can pursue their claims at trial.

—

A copy of Cloudflare’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint is available here (pdf) and the reply from the models can be found here (pdf)

From: TF , for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more. We have some good VPN deals here for the holidays.